Free energy or hoax?

[retina]

http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx

Originally Posted by Steorn website

Steorn is making three claims for its technology:

- The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%.
- The operation of the technology (i.e. the creation of energy) is not derived from the degradation of its component parts.
- There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy (as might be witnessed by a cooling of ambient air temperature).

The sum of these claims is that our technology creates free energy.

Can this be true?
Or just another hoax?

[cheesehead]

Answer: hoax.

Responses to some quotes from the web site:

"All great truths begin as blasphemies." -- Many falsehoods begin as claims of truth.

"Our technology has been independently validated by engineers and scientists - always off the record ..." (my italics) -- Why not on the record? Hmmm?

"The technology has a coefficient of performance greater than 100%." -- Define "coefficient of performance", please.

"There is no identifiable environmental source of the energy" -- Lack of identification doesn't imply nonexistence. (Perhaps Steorn lacks competency in identifying the source.)

"The sum of these claims is that our technology creates free energy." -- Only if the sum is greater than the parts, in this case.

"This represents a significant challenge to our current understanding of the universe and clearly such claims require independent validation from credible third parties. During 2005 Steorn embarked on a process of independent validation and approached a wide selection of academic institutions. ... Those who were prepared to complete testing have all confirmed our claims; however none will publicly go on record." (my italics, again) -- Why wouldn't they go on record? Hmmm?

"Steorn has decided to publish its challenge in The Economist because of the breadth of its readership. 'We chose it over a purely scientific magazine simply because we want to make the general public aware that this process is about to commence and to generate public support, awareness, interest etc for what we are doing.'" -- And, inconveniently, a purely scientific magazine might require actual proof of claims.

[Patrick123]

Steorn cancels Christmas!

They cancelled Christmas as well

[retina]

Why do I suddenly get memories of Cold Fusion? Hmmm.

I shan't be holding my breath then waiting for it to arrive at my corner shop.

Pity though, it is such a compelling idea. I guess these guys just found it all too compelling and are suffering from self-delusion. Or perhaps they have discovered a way to make money with such a claim, knowing it will eventually be proven false, and then hope to hide away and retire wealthy?

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by retina

Why do I suddenly get memories of Cold Fusion? Hmmm.

I shan't be holding my breath then waiting for it to arrive at my corner shop.

Pity though, it is such a compelling idea. I guess these guys just found it all too compelling and are suffering from self-delusion. Or perhaps they have discovered a way to make money with such a claim, knowing it will eventually be proven false, and then hope to hide away and retire wealthy?

My memory goes back further!
In my days we had to study 'the phlogiston theory' Ever heard of it?
Mally

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by retina

Why do I suddenly get memories of Cold Fusion? Hmmm.

Don't be too dismissive of cold fusion.
It would be well to visit the article at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

It seems that other beyond Fleischmann and Pons have had positive results. There seems to be something related to the actual structure of the electrode that may help. I used to keep up on what happened and it seemed that there was something going on.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Don't be too dismissive of cold fusion.
It would be well to visit the article at Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion

It seems that other beyond Fleischmann and Pons have had positive results. There seems to be something related to the actual structure of the electrode that may help. I used to keep up on what happened and it seemed that there was something going on.

Indeed, it's uncontroversial that cold fusion actually occurs.

What is controversial is whether cold fusion can produce useful amounts of energy in a small lab-scale apparatus.

Two forms of cold fusion are generally accepted as being real. Neither is useful. The first is muon-catalyzed fusion. A muon behaves very much like a heavy electron. Make a deuterium molecule with a muon replacing one of the electrons. Then find that the mass of the muon means the molecule is very much smaller. The deuterium nuclei are brought into close enough proximity that they fuse. The fusion releases energy and, in particular, gives some of it to the muon which is released to bind to another deuterium molecule.

The second form is gravitational confinement. It's straightforward to calculate the pressure at the center of, say Jupiter, and from that work out the consequences for how tightly the atoms must be packed together. If it's assumed that the H/D ratio in Jupiter is comparable with that found elsewhere in the solar system, we can estimate how many deuterioum molecules there are within Jupiter. From that, the pressure and very simple quantum mechanics, we can calculate the probability that two deuterons will tunnel close enough to fuse.

The reasons why neither of these are useful? Muons have a short life and don't have time enough to catalyze enough reactions to produce enough energy to create the muons in the first place. Jupiter is rather on the large size to count as laboratory-scale apparatus and, even if we ignore that detail, only about one fusion reaction per second occurs in a planetary mass the size of Jupiter.


Paul

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

In my days we had to study 'the phlogiston theory'
Mally

The phlogiston theory was not a hoax, but an honest attempt to explain an observed physical phenomenon. Later, more-complete observations showed it to be faulty.

[mfgoode]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

The phlogiston theory was not a hoax, but an honest attempt to explain an observed physical phenomenon. Later, more-complete observations showed it to be faulty.

Well it was not a hoax and neither is coldfusion.
There was no need of ' more complete observations' as the results were there from the start. The postulation of negative weight was a bold one indeed and would have upset all theories of conservation of energy and therefore had to be abandoned.
Even today there is a possibilty of gravitational repulsion along with gravitional attraction. How far this is true is anyones guess as to the best of my knowledge we have not found it in either the micro or macro world.
Mally

[retina]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

In my days we had to study 'the phlogiston theory' Ever heard of it?

Yeah, a few years back I saw a documentary about it. I've forgotten most of the details now.

Originally Posted by Uncwilly

Don't be too dismissive of cold fusion.

I was more meaning about how the Colr Fusion guys were making such fantastic claims but also without any compelling evidence.

I think these Steorn guys must be trying to get investment money which they then put in their pocket and run away. If it was truly working how they claim, then why not put at least one picture of it on the website or even better get the news cameras to film it in action. Seems they have something to hide.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by mfgoode

There was no need of ' more complete observations' as the results were there from the start.

Wrong. In the case of phlogiston, the original observations did not include the weight/mass of gases released during combustion, because people did not realize that they needed to include them. So, yes, there was need of more complete observations!

The postulation of negative weight was a bold one indeed

... which would not have even needed to be postulated if the original observations had included a complete accounting of weight/mass of all components. It was the later, more-complete accounting that led to abandonment of the theory.